Notableants 2024-10-22 12:23 p.m.Your Honor, my client moves for sanctions against opposing counsel for acting in a manner that is unbecoming of an attorney. On October 18, 2024, Mr. Sawyeriez approached my client with an offer to settle all claims in return for an admission of liability and a $17,500 lump sum payment. My client unconditionally accepted, and days later, without justification or legal right, Mr. Sawyeriez "retracted" the offer.
While Mayflower has yet to adopt a common law theory of what constitutes a valid contract, one existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant no matter what jurisdiction's rule of law is applied.
"A contract, to be valid, must contain offer, acceptance, and consideration; to be enforceable, the agreement must also be sufficiently definite so that its terms are reasonably certain and able to be determined." Halloran v. Dickerson, 287 Ill. App. 3d 857, 867–68, 679 N.E.2d 774, 782 (1997) (citing Ogle v. Hotto, 273 Ill. App. 3d 313, 319, 652 N.E.2d 815, 819 (1995)).
In this case, Mr. Sawyeriez's offer constituted a clear proposal of settlement, with terms that were sufficiently definite: an admission of liability and a lump sum payment of $17,500. My client accepted this offer unconditionally, thereby meeting the second element of a valid contract—acceptance. The consideration, or the agreed-upon exchange, was evident in the admission of liability and payment by the Defendant in exchange for the Plaintiff's dismissal of claims.
Indeed, Mr. Sawyeriez recognizes that his offer has grown to become more than just that. This morning, on the record, he called it an "[a]greeement."
Mr. Sawyeriez's deceitful conduct throughout settlement negotiations has unnecessarily delayed this case and caused my client to incur substantial legal fees. For those reasons, I request this Court impose sanctions.(edited)